SA Footy

I think there needs to be changes for next test with lee, Krejza and siddle being left out. With Hayden being on his last chance with hughes being told he may be getting look in soon. So i would pick bracken for lee, hilfy for siddle and cullen for krejza. The reason of picking cullen is he is bowling well with little reward and is bowling tightly and in the aussie team well with his attacking bowling. so side will be:

1 Hayden (last chance)
2 Katich
3 Ponting
4 Hussey
5 Clarke
6 Symonds (Thornley and Mc Donald not to far away)
7 Hadden
8 Johnson
9 Bracken
10 Cullen
11 Hilfy

12 Watson/ Siddle/ Lee

Changes must be made so players no they don't perform they will be replaced

You serious ?

No way Lee will be left out. Siddle maybe and Krejza should/will play.
A new spinner to the team, they need to give him a chance. Siddle lacks penetration
ATM but I'd go for Bollinger in over Hilfenhaus....

Wasn't the bowlers who failed this test, more so the batsmen for not putting the runs up....

Thornley?? I hope you're joking.

You don't make wholesale changes just because a quality team chased you down on the fifth day on a flat wicket. The situation is this: our very best batsmen are contributing almost nothing. One of our lead quicks is out injured while our other is WAY below his best. Despite this we pushed the second placed side into the fifth day and made them chase a near world record last innings total for victory. Long story short, with a couple of form reversals and perhaps one minor change to the side we are a great chance to make it 1-1 with the Boxing Day test.

Everyone already knows what my change would be (Hilf in for Siddle) so I won't go into it. There isn't too much wrong with our line up - Krejza struggles with control but we've finally found a spinner who can produce those genuine wicket-taking deliveries. The problem right now is he bowls a few really excellent balls then a couple of shockers that immediately relieve any pressure he created. With good coaching and more opportunities at the highest level he should start cutting those out of his game, we just need to be a bit patient.

As for Lee, he's in the side to lead our attack and up until the Indian series he was doing a good job. We can't give up on him yet and we definitely cannot afford to drop him with someone like Clark missing.

Finally given all that Hayden has produced for our side over the years he deserves a chance to try to bring himself out of the slump he's in imo.

SJABC wrote:You serious ?

No way Lee will be left out. Siddle maybe and Krejza should/will play.
A new spinner to the team, they need to give him a chance. Siddle lacks penetration
ATM but I'd go for Bollinger in over Hilfenhaus....

Wasn't the bowlers who failed this test, more so the batsmen for not putting the runs up....

I agree with what Rod_Rooster wrote on the 1st test topic.
The batsmen gave the bowlers 414 to defend!!!
It's only ben chased down once before in 130 years!!!!
Lee, Krezja and Siddle all took 1 wicket for over 150 runs!!!! If that's not failing I don't know what is!!!!!!!

catchisthecry wrote:

SJABC wrote:You serious ?

No way Lee will be left out. Siddle maybe and Krejza should/will play.
A new spinner to the team, they need to give him a chance. Siddle lacks penetration
ATM but I'd go for Bollinger in over Hilfenhaus....

Wasn't the bowlers who failed this test, more so the batsmen for not putting the runs up....

I agree with what Rod_Rooster wrote on the 1st test topic.
The batsmen gave the bowlers 414 to defend!!!
It's only ben chased down once before in 130 years!!!!
Lee, Krezja and Siddle all took 1 wicket for over 150 runs!!!! If that's not failing I don't know what is!!!!!!!

Yeah, as i said how many runs do the bowlers require to bowl at? If they can't defend 413 then they have not performed up to standard no matter how well the opposition played.

Siddle out - Ryan Harris in...
Binga has 1 more test to show he is not a one trick pony.
Krejza alas is still our best spinner (although i would have stuck with Casson initially)
Punter needs to grow up, Clarke and Roy need to show greater discipline.
I am not convinced about our openers, even though Kat is churning out some good scores - no chemistry. Not sure immediate answers either, i like RH/LH combos, all likely in's are left handers (Jacques, Rogers, Hughes even Quiney)
In past Aussies have got through by class and fear (some great bullies like Oooh ahh and Warney) - they no longer have that. Interesting times ahead...

rod_rooster wrote:Yeah, as i said how many runs do the bowlers require to bowl at? If they can't defend 413 then they have not performed up to standard no matter how well the opposition played.

In the first innings the top 6 made 214 compared to the tail making 146. Second innings the top 6 made 143 compared to the tail making 156.
Compared to the South African top 6 who made a total of 224 and 414.

If it wasn't for the bowlers & the keeper making runs Australia would've been SMASHED.

Hell Siddle made 19 more runs than Hussey did, and Krejza made 30 more then Ponting. Easy enough to point the finger at the bowlers and say you weren't good enough to bowl them out, but IMO, if the batsmen at the top of the order did their jobs and put decent runs on the board instead of relying on the bottom 5 to contribute 302 of the total innings then perhaps we may of won.

It was my opinion. Sure Siddle & Krejza and to a lesser degree Lee lacked penetration, but as I posted previously Lee has the runs on the board to be given some credits, Krejza is a newbie and deserves a chance and Siddle will be the one in danger of being dropped.

That's the way I see it.....

There is alot of question marks over alot of players. Haydon? Ponting? Hussey? Siddle? Lee? Krieja? But i can only see one change for the boxing day test , Siddle for I hope Ryan Harris but i think it will be someone else.

I don't think you can clear either the bowlers or the batsmen of blame.

If you are picked to play test cricket then you need to take > 1 wicket for the match (3 of our bowlers only took 1 wicket ). The top order also didn't take their opportunities. No one's innocent here.

Does that mean wholesale changes? IMO, no. If you start to mess with the confidence and team harmony then we'll end up with more losses as the revolving door spins off its hinges. I think Siddle is in trouble however the G is his home deck. Watto may be looked at now that Haddin is up and firing. Roy could be in the firing line because his bowling is non-existent these days. He hasn't been the worst batsmen however so I'd keep him in the side.

They had trouble with the left-armer so I'd look at Bracken or Bollinger for Siddle as the only change. Hilf would also have to be very close. All 3 are having good seasons with the ball.

Hayden must be very close to being dropped, maybe they will keep him there until jaques is fit.

Lee has struggled for a while now and his biggest weapon, his pace, has desserted him but deserves the rest of this series to prove us wrong.

Siddle is young and worth perservering with IMO but i think Bollinger will come in for him for boxing day.

Krejza has to learn to be more economical, he seems to try and take a wicket with every ball and no attempt is made to tie a batsmen down and then attack.

Johnson well he is in the form of his career so far.

I would love to see us chuck Phil Hughes, who could play 15 years of test cricket, in the deep end and give him Haydens spot now but i can't see us taking that 'risk'.

Everyone has been talking up Phil Hughes - but surely Michael Klinger is in line for selection equally with Hughes?

He has made something like 300 more runs in the SS than Hughes and has made them at venues all around the country. I would have thought he'd be the next in line for the openers spot should Hayden be dropped?

Things going against Klinger are: he bats at no. 3 for SA (spot on offer will be opener), he is right-handed (selectors might be keen on keeping the left-hand opening partnership) and he doesn't play for NSW .

blink wrote:Everyone has been talking up Phil Hughes - but surely Michael Klinger is in line for selection equally with Hughes?

He has made something like 300 more runs in the SS than Hughes and has made them at venues all around the country. I would have thought he'd be the next in line for the openers spot should Hayden be dropped?

Things going against Klinger are: he bats at no. 3 for SA (spot on offer will be opener), he is right-handed (selectors might be keen on keeping the left-hand opening partnership) and he doesn't play for NSW .

As well as Klinger only having done it for 3 months. Whilst Hughes hasn't done it for too much longer his century in the shield final last year shows how much talent the kid has. Klinger is still a fair way back in the pecking order IMO.

catchisthecry wrote: I agree with what Rod_Rooster wrote on the 1st test topic.
The batsmen gave the bowlers 414 to defend!!!
It's only ben chased down once before in 130 years!!!!
Lee, Krezja and Siddle all took 1 wicket for over 150 runs!!!! If that's not failing I don't know what is!!!!!!!

Very defensive field placings don't exactly help the bowlers attack the batsman and take wickets.
It looked to me like the idea was to rely entirely on the opposition getting impatient and taking risks.

rod_rooster wrote:Yeah, as i said how many runs do the bowlers require to bowl at? If they can't defend 413 then they have not performed up to standard no matter how well the opposition played.

As SJABC said if it wasn't for the bowlers SA would have been chasing 280-330.

Lee didn't do much wrong as if you watched closely the jarpies basically sat on him, play safe with Lee and Johnson the runs will come off Siddle and Krejza. Lees spells on Sat nigh and yesterday morning where very good and the Seth efricans respected that by playing very straight to him.

Whilst I'm not adverse to to bowling changes Hilfenhaus/Bollinger for Siddle we will still have the same predicament a young inexperienced attack against a very good batting line up especially if Prince comes back in.

Braken no way - to slow for test cricket - with attacking fields unlike one-day cricket where he has protection he will be cannon fodder.

Psyber wrote:

catchisthecry wrote: I agree with what Rod_Rooster wrote on the 1st test topic.
The batsmen gave the bowlers 414 to defend!!!
It's only ben chased down once before in 130 years!!!!
Lee, Krezja and Siddle all took 1 wicket for over 150 runs!!!! If that's not failing I don't know what is!!!!!!!

Very defensive field placings don't exactly help the bowlers attack the batsman and take wickets.
It looked to me like the idea was to rely entirely on the opposition getting impatient and taking risks.

Which is exactly what our batsmen did. The south africans batted with more discipline that is why they won IMO.

rod_rooster wrote:

catchisthecry wrote:

SJABC wrote:You serious ?

No way Lee will be left out. Siddle maybe and Krejza should/will play.
A new spinner to the team, they need to give him a chance. Siddle lacks penetration
ATM but I'd go for Bollinger in over Hilfenhaus....

Wasn't the bowlers who failed this test, more so the batsmen for not putting the runs up....

I agree with what Rod_Rooster wrote on the 1st test topic.
The batsmen gave the bowlers 414 to defend!!!
It's only ben chased down once before in 130 years!!!!
Lee, Krezja and Siddle all took 1 wicket for over 150 runs!!!! If that's not failing I don't know what is!!!!!!!

Yeah, as i said how many runs do the bowlers require to bowl at? If they can't defend 413 then they have not performed up to standard no matter how well the opposition played.

i agree with u RR, the bowlers let us down. Even tho our batsman didn make the big scores and were far from their best (Haydn, Ponting, Hussey) i think the fact we could defend 413 says it self. I think that shows where our bowling issues lie. Should never have lost it after having 413 to defend. But at the same time, i think the South Africans deserve credit, they won the game by batting well and bowling well early on in both innings. We were outplay and i think there prob shouldn be too many whole sale changes because we are not going to dominate like warne/mcgrath era did. We gotta stick with some blokes through the hard times!

and Norm11 how can u say there is a question mark of Hussey, he had a bad game who cares? he can fail. Even bradman had bad games. If hussey has a question mark that means the other blokes shouldn be playing (johnson aside)... talk about jumping off the bandwagon when someone fails for once!

Get rid of Siddle and Krejza and im happy.

Hayden and Lee on last chances.

Symonds has got to go on with his starts and make a decent score, instead of throwing his wicket away.

the big positive out of this game was the performance of Johnson............i think he well and truelly proved he is 100% quality...............with 12 wickets and a bag of runs it was a brilliant effort...........

well done johno!!!!!

hearts on fire wrote:Get rid of Siddle and Krejza and im happy.

Hayden and Lee on last chances.

Symonds has got to go on with his starts and make a decent score, instead of throwing his wicket away.

Hayden has the chance this game i believe. His boxing day record is amazing to say the least. Hopefully we can see the hayden of old on his favourite batting deck.